PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Neurosmith

Junior Member
Registered Member
Some interesting developments from Japan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Mar 27, 2025 - 15:49

Japan on Thursday unveiled a plan to evacuate about 120,000 people from southern islets near Taiwan, regarded by China as its territory, in case of an emergency.

Ships and planes would be able to transport around 110,000 residents and 10,000 visitors from the Sakishima Islands in Okinawa Prefecture to eight southwestern and western prefectures within six days under the plan.

With tensions between China and Taiwan escalating, the Japanese government said it plans to conduct field drills for evacuations from the southern prefecture of Okinawa in fiscal 2026 from April next year.

File photo taken in March 2022 shows Yonaguni Airport on Yonaguni Island in Okinawa Prefecture. (Kyodo)
The evacuees are expected to first transfer by private ferries or airplanes to certain airports and a port on Japan's southwestern main island of Kyushu, northeast of Okinawa Prefecture, before heading to other evacuation destinations.

The government says the plan is not aimed at any particular scenario, but all the country's islets subject to evacuation are near Taiwan, with Yonaguni Island located only about 100 kilometers from the self-ruled democratic territory.

Taiwan is viewed as a possible military flashpoint that could draw the United States into conflict with China, posing serious security challenges for Japan, a key U.S. ally in Asia.

On Thursday, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said the plan is designed to deepen discussions on the evacuation of residents "under the assumption of a situation where armed attacks are predicted."

The effectiveness of efforts to prepare for such a large-scale evacuation has been "improved," as the plan specifies how to transport evacuees, secure accommodation and deliver meals, Hayashi, the top government spokesman, said at a press conference.

In the National Security Strategy long-term policy guidelines updated in 2022, the government pledged to formulate a plan to achieve "prompt evacuation of residents, including those in the southwest region well in advance of an armed attack."

Close to Taiwan in the East China Sea, the Tokyo-administered Senkaku Islands are claimed by Beijing, but they are uninhabited. China and Taiwan have been separately governed since they split as a result of a civil war in 1949.

Some interpretations of this event:
  • This is an unusually-publicized development. You don't typically announce these exercises a full year in advance and in such a fashion that it makes international headlines. This is an intentional message to Japan's surrounding neighbors, including China.
  • Okinawa is relatively close to Kyushu, where Japan has announced
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    . This might be entirely coincidental but the timing of these announcements lead me to believe otherwise.
  • This could be an indication that Japan may be aware of an impending Taiwan operation. The operative word is "could", since it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Japan to conduct these drills during times of heightened tension.
  • More alarmingly, this could also indicate that Japan has decided that it would involve itself in any Taiwan conflict, since Okinawa & Kyushu Prefectures would likely come under attack if Japanese military forces are engaged in that conflict. The placement of anti-ship missiles on a nearby prefecture only adds to this theory.
 

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is an unavoidable question for Japan decision-makers: Does the use of Japanese airports/ports by the US military for intervention count as Japanese intervention? Will it lead to a retaliatory strike by the PLA? If the Japanese decision-makers are pessimistic about this, then preparation is the only solution. Because they obviously cannot control the behavior of the US military.
Correspondingly, when they take a posture of preparation/intervention, the PLA will consider the possibility of retaliatory strikes or even preemptive strikes. Similar scenarios are happening on all sides, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 

Lime

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is an unavoidable question for Japan decision-makers: Does the use of Japanese airports/ports by the US military for intervention count as Japanese intervention? Will it lead to a retaliatory strike by the PLA? If the Japanese decision-makers are pessimistic about this, then preparation is the only solution. Because they obviously cannot control the behavior of the US military.
Correspondingly, when they take a posture of preparation/intervention, the PLA will consider the possibility of retaliatory strikes or even preemptive strikes. Similar scenarios are happening on all sides, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think US will intervene without discussing with allies. Any active military action to other country means the acquiescence from allies like NATO and JP/SK. The war will become uncontrollable since they will all be involved. That's why no NATO countries directly joined the war in Ukraine, because not all NATO countries want a war.
 

CaribouTruth

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The memo seems pretty clear. Would be interesting to see if strategic ambiguity is done with after this move.

The document, known as the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance and marked “secret/no foreign national” in most passages, was distributed throughout the Defense Department in mid-March and signed by Hegseth. It outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the “near abroad,” including Greenland and the Panama Canal.

The document — setting out a prioritization framework for senior defense officials and a vision to execute that work — also instructs the military to take a more direct role in countering illegal migration and drug trafficking.

The first Trump administration and the Biden administration characterized China as the greatest threat to the U.S. and postured the force to prepare for and deter conflict in the Pacific region. But Hegseth’s guidance is extraordinary in its description of the potential invasion of Taiwan as the exclusive animating scenario that must be prioritized over other potential dangers — reorienting the vast U.S. military architecture toward the Indo-Pacific region beyond its homeland defense mission.

The Pentagon will “assume risk in other theaters” given personnel and resource constraints, and pressure allies in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia to spend more on defense to take on the bulk of the deterrence role against threats from Russia, North Korea and Iran, according to the guidance.

“China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario,” Hegseth wrote. Its force planning construct — a concept of how the Pentagon will build and resource the armed services to take on perceived threats — will consider conflict only with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war, it says, leaving the threat from Moscow largely attended by European allies.

The guidance was provided to congressional national security committees, where Republicans and Democrats have described it as confusing, according to a congressional aide who reviewed the document. It calls for withdrawing from a presence in most of the world, including the Middle East, but the administration has focused on demonstrating firepower and deterrence against the Houthis in Yemen and pressuring Iran, the aide noted.

“There’s tension between ‘We want American strength and military dominance in the world, and we want to be everywhere, but also nowhere,’” the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive documents. “And that’s inconsistent and going to be difficult for them to design a strategy around.”

The new Pentagon guidance for a “denial defense” of Taiwan includes increasing the troop presence through submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialty units from the Army and Marine Corps, as well as a greater focus on bombs that destroy reinforced and subterranean targets. The plan also calls for improving defense of U.S. troop locations in the Indo-Pacific, generating pre-positioned stocks and improving logistics.

While emphasizing support to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan, the document also calls for “pressuring” Taipei to “significantly increase” its defense spending. Trump and his allies have criticized Taiwan as underinvesting in its own defense, urging the self-ruled democratic island to spend up to 10 percent of its GDP on military readiness — a proportion well above what the U.S. and its allies spend on defense.

Since taking office, he has dodged the question of whether the U.S. would allow Beijing to take the island by force.

Two people familiar with Taiwan’s official discussions said the government in Taipei has struggled to make inroads with the new U.S. administration, amid growing doubts about Washington’s support — concerns that intensified after February’s disastrous Oval Office meeting of Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In 2023, U.S. analysts concluded Taiwan’s forces would be unlikely to thwart Chinese military air superiority, according to leaked classified documents.
 

Neurosmith

Junior Member
Registered Member
The memo seems pretty clear. Would be interesting to see if strategic ambiguity is done with after this move.
Getting Taiwan to spend 10% of its economic output on the military is setting them up for economic instability. No sane Taiwanese leader would actually heed that request.

That being said, Taiwan's 200+ 4.5-gen fighter force (and a surplus of 150+ older jets) and its missile forces have been quite deterrent already. Time isn't on Taiwan's side and the US seems to realize that, given the "gloves off" attitude that the latest administration seems to bear.
 

RoastGooseHKer

New Member
Registered Member
Getting Taiwan to spend 10% of its economic output on the military is setting them up for economic instability. No sane Taiwanese leader would actually heed that request.

That being said, Taiwan's 200+ 4.5-gen fighter force (and a surplus of 150+ older jets) and its missile forces have been quite deterrent already. Time isn't on Taiwan's side and the US seems to realize that, given the "gloves off" attitude that the latest administration seems to bear.
Well the “gloves off” attitude was first adopted under Biden with the four strategic clarity declarations and Pelosi visit.

As with the current Trump policy, it is a rather desperate measure to shore up deterrence. However, I think the 10% spending advocated by Elbridge Colby is a double-edge sword. It is meant to pressure Taiwan to spend more on U.S. weapons/components and shore up deterrence against the PRC in the short run. However, should deterrence fail, Washington would still have an excuse/option of not directly intervene militarily by accusing Taiwan of failing to meet the 10% suggested by USDOD. It still maintains a large degree of flexibility for Washington. It relates directly to Colby’s point that Taiwan is “important but not existential” to the U.S. national interests.

To the PRC, it does add more pressure and compel Beijing to think twice before initiating military action. However, the actual balance of power plus available assets could cause Beijing to call the bluff and attack anyway at a time of its choosing. Thus, Washington is increasing the deployments of medium range weapons in the Philippines as well, albeit still falling short of what is needed in an actual high intensity war with China.
 
Last edited:

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
You just repeated your claim without specifying exactly how the Chinese military would be able to effectively detect and engage B-2s and B-21s in the first place. No doubt China has a vast and expanding dense air defence network but this does not automatically translate into being able to block out these types of aircraft, which are not the same types as F-22s and F-35s which ARE effectively threatened by these air defence networks.
Dude, what universe do you live in? China has one of the largest networks of air search radars and sensors, the B-2/21s are not stealth aircraft capable of stealthily penetrating the Chinese mainland and hunting down all mobile launchers. This is pure wishful thinking, where you did not specify how they would be able to do this. As I said, for this to happen, the Americans would have to first deal with the PLAAF and its aviation, then deal with the layered GBAD that China has in large quantities.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Well the “gloves off” attitude was first adopted under Biden with the four strategic clarity declarations and Pelosi visit.

As with the current Trump policy, it is a rather desperate measure to shore up deterrence. However, I think the 10% spending advocated by Elbridge Colby is a double-edge sword. It is meant to pressure Taiwan to spend more on U.S. weapons/components and shore up deterrence against the PRC in the short run. However, should deterrence fail, Washington would still have an excuse/option of not directly intervene militarily by accusing Taiwan of failing to meet the 10% suggested by USDOD. It still maintains a large degree of flexibility for Washington. It relates directly to Colby’s point that Taiwan is “important but not existential” to the U.S. national interests.

To the PRC, it does add more pressure and compel Beijing to think twice before initiating military action. However, the actual balance of power plus available assets could cause Beijing to call the bluff and attack anyway at a time of its choosing. Thus, Washington is increasing the deployments of medium range weapons in the Philippines as well, albeit still falling short of what is needed in an actual high intensity war with China.

If the desire was to actually shore up Taiwan’s defences, then the US can simply gift them all the arms it wants, like Ukraine, where the ‘gift’ can be rebranded as a loan later whenever the Americans want.

The 10% defence spending has less to do with actually boosting Taiwan’s defences and more about America maximising profit extraction from Taiwan while it still can.
 

Gloire_bb

Major
Registered Member
That being said there can be many more in secret, but that would be up to the PLA to analyze through intelligence gathering. If enough of these sections are identified, the idea of emergency runways becomes a moot point.
It's never moot. Their point isn't being unidentifiable, their point is being numerous enough to blip around. Crating landing strips is done not to destroy them, but to achieve immediate results. Otherwise, repair or simply rearrangement starts playing in.

And frankly, even this is ROCAF's own midtier bully mentality from 1990s playing pranks on them - a funny(though arguably typical for modern world) mix of insolence and bootlickering. Taking STOL seriously in late 1980s aircraft could be done on a level beyond Sweden and even probably Russia; they just...didn't.
 

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
Dude, what universe do you live in? China has one of the largest networks of air search radars and sensors, the B-2/21s are not stealth aircraft capable of stealthily penetrating the Chinese mainland and hunting down all mobile launchers. This is pure wishful thinking, where you did not specify how they would be able to do this. As I said, for this to happen, the Americans would have to first deal with the PLAAF and its aviation, then deal with the layered GBAD that China has in large quantities.
I don't think china's sam system network is as good as russia or us. Russia has like 1500 s-300/s-400. US has 1000+ patriots. Compared to that China only has 300 HQ-9 launchers overall and out of which only 100 HQ-9B. It only has 2-300 s-300 from older generation as well. It's simply inadequate to cover the entirety of China. There will be gaps and US could exploit them. China needs to really up its air defense missile production if they want to have a solid air defense shield.
 
Top